MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990706461

Does the Healthy Immigrant Effect Disappear? Examining the Serbian Community in Toronto

2012· other· en· W6990706461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationEthnic groupPopulationRefugeeContext (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large body of research has described the healthy immigrant effect – the phenomenon that immigrants are healthier than the native-born population in terms of chronic disease, self-assessed health, obesity, and mortality levels. However, much of this research has also pointed to the fact that with extended residence, immigrant health status declines and sometimes, converges to that of the Canadian-born population. Despite this growing body of work, qualitative studies examining this phenomenon in a specific ethnic community have yet to be presented. To fill this research gap, this paper reports on the results of 15 in-depth interviews with long-term Serbian immigrant women in Toronto, to explore their health status after extended residence in Canada. Of the women interviewed, 14 reported good health despite 11 to 22 years of residence in Canada. They also reported healthy lifestyle behaviours, access to a culturally appropriate physician, as well as close ties and social support from the Serbian community in Toronto. The results underscore the importance of qualitative research on specific immigrant ethnic groups in Canada to really drill deeply into individual perceptions of health and wellbeing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→